Feasible Megali Idea?

What's the maximum feasible workability of the Megali idea as laid out at the treaty of Sevres? How much can the Greeks take and hold, how can they win the Asia Minor War, and how long can their gains possibly hold? Assume that Allied plans for an international Constantinople are not followed through with due to a lack of promised allied aid, specifically from the internally combusting Russians.

Thoughts?
 
To win in Asia Minor you need Venizelos remaining in charge, allied support remains with a Venizelos government which is potentially decisive even without the purely internal, military advantages it brings (as in the command structure of the army remaining in place). Border likely wouldn't be much different to that of Sevres, possibly somewhat expanded south to match the Meander/Mender river and east to Philadelpheia /Alasehir to make it more defensible. How long it holds? To the present day likely. Turkey joining the axis during ww2 is not going to alter the outcome of the war, so any temporary gains then are reversed and post ww2 changing borders becomes distinctly unfashionable.
 
What impact would a successful Treaty of Sevres have on Greece, Turkey, Armenia, and Syria?

Well, right off the bat you’re going to see population movements even more drastic than post-Lausanne IOTL. The Greeks remaining in Turkish Anatolia either get run out or killed, same as the Turks in the new Greek Anatolia. An unexpected sore spot may be Greek Macedonia—before Lausanne IOTL Slavic speakers made up a substantial part of that region’s population (after the war Anatolian Greeks mostly moved there), and may agitate against the Greeks or seek to join Bulgaria ITTL. Expect tremendous cultural suppression of Turks and Slavs by the Greek government—it happened IOTL and was one of the sparks of the Greek Civil War. My guess is that this Greece is highly unstable and prone to massive Turkish and Bulgarian irredentism—both will invade Greece in WWII.

Turkey will be a mess, although how bad of a mess it’s in depends on the final peace treaty with the GPs. If it’s OTL Sèvres, they’ve lost their wealthiest and most developed regions and are essentially a rural rump state. IMO there’s a good chance for something like a Communist revolution, but fascism is more likely. Their first priority will likely be kicking out the Italian and French spheres of influence and probably won’t find it all that difficult.

Armenia will immediately face challenges in administrating its land—the Genocide has already happened, so Western Armenia ITTL is mostly Turkish. I would bet that they would allow the Soviets in to help, which puts a Soviet dagger aimed right at the Turkish heartland. In WWII the Soviets likely invade Turkey and Communize it...

Syria is probably the least affected of these regions—it falls under the French mandate as IOTL, although if Turkey does end up invading France’s Anatolian possessions it may cross into Turkish parts of Syria as well.
 
Well, right off the bat you’re going to see population movements even more drastic than post-Lausanne IOTL. The Greeks remaining in Turkish Anatolia either get run out or killed, same as the Turks in the new Greek Anatolia. An unexpected sore spot may be Greek Macedonia—before Lausanne IOTL Slavic speakers made up a substantial part of that region’s population (after the war Anatolian Greeks mostly moved there), and may agitate against the Greeks or seek to join Bulgaria ITTL. Expect tremendous cultural suppression of Turks and Slavs by the Greek government—it happened IOTL and was one of the sparks of the Greek Civil War. My guess is that this Greece is highly unstable and prone to massive Turkish and Bulgarian irredentism—both will invade Greece in WWII.

Turkey will be a mess, although how bad of a mess it’s in depends on the final peace treaty with the GPs. If it’s OTL Sèvres, they’ve lost their wealthiest and most developed regions and are essentially a rural rump state. IMO there’s a good chance for something like a Communist revolution, but fascism is more likely. Their first priority will likely be kicking out the Italian and French spheres of influence and probably won’t find it all that difficult.

Armenia will immediately face challenges in administrating its land—the Genocide has already happened, so Western Armenia ITTL is mostly Turkish. I would bet that they would allow the Soviets in to help, which puts a Soviet dagger aimed right at the Turkish heartland. In WWII the Soviets likely invade Turkey and Communize it...

Syria is probably the least affected of these regions—it falls under the French mandate as IOTL, although if Turkey does end up invading France’s Anatolian possessions it may cross into Turkish parts of Syria as well.

I agree there's likely an exchange of populations, although I am not as certain it affects more people in total than OTL. You obviously have more Muslim exchangees, with Thrace and Smyrna included but by the same token you have something in the order of 800-900,000 Greeks and Armenians remaining in place in the same areas. And there's an open question how alt-Greece deals with its Muslim population, there were some interesting undercurrents in the Greek elites pre-disaster over accommodation of the Muslim population, at a minimum Vallaads, Turcocretans and the Circassians who backed the Greek side in the war likely are excepted from any population exchange.

Armenia... too late for it with pod in November 1920. But I could see the Soviets not giving up Kars and Ardahan nor making Nagorno Karabah Azeri in a TL where the nationalist army got defeated in summer 1921.
 
Syria is probably the least affected of these regions—it falls under the French mandate as IOTL, although if Turkey does end up invading France’s Anatolian possessions it may cross into Turkish parts of Syria as well.
Syria would hold onto Hatay with a weak Turkey
 
I agree there's likely an exchange of populations, although I am not as certain it affects more people in total than OTL. You obviously have more Muslim exchangees, with Thrace and Smyrna included but by the same token you have something in the order of 800-900,000 Greeks and Armenians remaining in place in the same areas. And there's an open question how alt-Greece deals with its Muslim population, there were some interesting undercurrents in the Greek elites pre-disaster over accommodation of the Muslim population, at a minimum Vallaads, Turcocretans and the Circassians who backed the Greek side in the war likely are excepted from any population exchange.

Ah, so the Greek Muslims likely get to stay in Greece? I suppose whether this is a good or bad thing for Greece depends on the shape of the post-war government, as if they go full nationalist idiocy then the Muslims get suppressed and likely support the Turkish invasion in WWII as the Slavic Macedonians did for Yugoslavia IOTL. If they accept/integrate the Muslims, all the more power to them.

Armenia... too late for it with pod in November 1920. But I could see the Soviets not giving up Kars and Ardahan nor making Nagorno Karabah Azeri in a TL where the nationalist army got defeated in summer 1921.

Ah, I was assuming a full adoption of Sèvres. If it’s a larger Soviet Armenia, it’s arguably even easier for the Soviets to consolidate the region and force Turkey into Communism later. That would have gigantic butterfly effects on the Cold War...

Syria would hold onto Hatay with a weak Turkey

Unless fascist Turkey comes along to take it back...

EDIT: But Syria probably gets it after WWII
 
Ah, so the Greek Muslims likely get to stay in Greece? I suppose whether this is a good or bad thing for Greece depends on the shape of the post-war government, as if they go full nationalist idiocy then the Muslims get suppressed and likely support the Turkish invasion in WWII as the Slavic Macedonians did for Yugoslavia IOTL. If they accept/integrate the Muslims, all the more power to them.

SOME of the Greek Muslims are likely to stay in Greece. There are groups that Greece tried to convince to remain even in OTL, like the Vallaads and groups that were fighting on the side of the Greek army in Asia Minor (a sizeable portion of the Circassian population of Western Anatolia) some of which fled to Greece in OTL. And ATL Greece is economically a much better prospect than the OTL one. Others by the same token are likely to leave for Turkey.

Politically Greece is likely dominated by the Liberal party to an even larger degree than OTL, between a larger number of Asia Minor voters (who OTL voted 70 to 90% for the Liberals) and the victory itself. At the same times it will be avoiding the revolution of 1922 and he series of coups that followed it. You can logically posit a Liberal win in 1924, thanks to the Asia Minor vote, the Populists winning in 1928 (by that point Venizelos would be in power for the past 11 years and had won all elections since 1911, aside from the ones rigged ones in December 1915, so voter fatigue looks likely). Which would be something of a poisoned chalice as the great depression blows into their face... hence leading to the Liberals returning to power by 1933. Oh and ATL Metaxas death sentence for collaboration with the Germans is still outstanding with the Venizelists in power. Of course the man is safely or perhaps not so safely holed up in Italy...
 
What's the maximum feasible workability of the Megali idea as laid out at the treaty of Sevres? How much can the Greeks take and hold, how can they win the Asia Minor War, and how long can their gains possibly hold? Assume that Allied plans for an international Constantinople are not followed through with due to a lack of promised allied aid, specifically from the internally combusting Russians.

Thoughts?

For the Megali Idea to work the Turks/Muslims need to leave and the Greeks knew that. It will require a holocaust alike genocide, in numbers.
 
For the Megali Idea to work the Turks/Muslims need to leave and the Greeks knew that. It will require a holocaust alike genocide, in numbers.

There’s a distinction to be made between Turks and Muslims, though, at least a little bit. Would you call the Vallahades Turks?

I do agree that there would be a genocide in Anatolia, though—beyond the coast, and I do mean literally just the coastline, it’s 95%+ Turkish Muslims. Can’t see the Greek government managing that well, not with a furious revanchist Turkey smuggling rebels supplies through the mountains.
 
There’s a distinction to be made between Turks and Muslims, though, at least a little bit. Would you call the Vallahades Turks?

When it comes to the Balkans and Anatolia in general (and Greece is a Balkan state), the terminology can be very tricky. In the case of a religion-based distinction, finely-graded distinctions don't matter. Hence, for example, the case of the Cretan Greeks who became Muslim, who were all expelled. The Treaty of Lausanne's mandatory population exchange IOTL made things much worse - all Orthodox Christians were suddenly declared "Greeks" (even if they didn't see themselves as Greeks) and all Muslims declared as "Turks". Part of the problem here can be traced back to the old Ottoman-era millet system, which also fixed nationality on the basis of religion, and that mentality continued to fester and is part of the heart of the problems throughout SE Europe. And in this case compounding the tragedy even more ITTL.
 
There’s a distinction to be made between Turks and Muslims, though, at least a little bit. Would you call the Vallahades Turks?

I do agree that there would be a genocide in Anatolia, though—beyond the coast, and I do mean literally just the coastline, it’s 95%+ Turkish Muslims. Can’t see the Greek government managing that well, not with a furious revanchist Turkey smuggling rebels supplies through the mountains.

On the other hand an feasible Greek Ionia IS stopping at the coast and probably only part of the coast, the OTL Sevres zone is a resonable approximation of the end state in case of a Greek victory, with parts of modern Mugla province an outside possibility. We shouldn't be mistaking the Greek military strategy in late 1920-21 which was aiming to decisively defeat the nationalist army to force Kemal to terms with the end state Athens was hoping to achieve at the peace treaty.
 
For the Megali Idea to work the Turks/Muslims need to leave and the Greeks knew that. It will require a holocaust alike genocide, in numbers.

Did they know that? The internal communications of the Greek government at the time, for example the Venizelos memorandums to Constantine before Galipoli (for an example that is probably translated in English) are speaking about how the Muslims would become "a valuable, law abiding and industrious addition to the population " (translation mine from memory) with proper government care, the Ionia university being prepared in Smyrna had Eastern (ie Muslim) studies as one of its five schools (with one of the goals producing in large numbers teachers) and by 1920 you had dozens of Muslim members of parliament. This are not quite a government that plans to ethnic cleanse it's Muslim population. On the other hand the Greek government was open to voluntary compansated population exchanges for anyone who wanted to go and between the prime minister and your uneducated gendarme on the ground there's obviously a distance. So were things rosy? Not quite. Where there black with the Greeks intending to make them worse? Again not quite.
 
Have the WAllies, esp. Britain, throw more support behind them. That'll leave the Straits in the hands of their Greek ally.
 

Deleted member 94680

What's the maximum feasible workability of the Megali idea as laid out at the treaty of Sevres? How much can the Greeks take and hold, how can they win the Asia Minor War, and how long can their gains possibly hold? Assume that Allied plans for an international Constantinople are not followed through with due to a lack of promised allied aid, specifically from the internally combusting Russians.

Thoughts?

Why not? I think an International Zone in Constantinople might help the Greeks. It would imply that the WAllies are more committed to anti-Turk intrigues - likely no Chanak Crisis (or a pro-Lloyd George solution to it) and wanting their ally to benefit. You know, the usual “we need stability in the region, we’ll support the annexation of territory by a member of our club” kind of thing.
 
The question is, even if the Greeks don't attempt to greatly expand their zone like they did OTL, would Ataturk accept that or would he still want to keep Anatatolia to the waters edge Turkish - I think the latter. Even if the Greeks are not overextended like OTL, could they hold on to their chunk of Anatolia against Ataturk if the the UK/France/Italy don't back them up? OTL they did not, if the Greeks accept the Sevres lines more or less will the western powers tell Ataturk to stay on his side, and will he believe they would resist him if they do?
 
If the Entente doesn't decide to leave the war unfinished, Turkey would be inevitably subdued. I suspect a revised Treaty of Sevres, but not a completely new treaty from scratch. Thus Greece would get Ionia and parts of Thrace, accomplishing independence.
 
When it comes to the Balkans and Anatolia in general (and Greece is a Balkan state), the terminology can be very tricky. In the case of a religion-based distinction, finely-graded distinctions don't matter. Hence, for example, the case of the Cretan Greeks who became Muslim, who were all expelled. The Treaty of Lausanne's mandatory population exchange IOTL made things much worse - all Orthodox Christians were suddenly declared "Greeks" (even if they didn't see themselves as Greeks) and all Muslims declared as "Turks". Part of the problem here can be traced back to the old Ottoman-era millet system, which also fixed nationality on the basis of religion, and that mentality continued to fester and is part of the heart of the problems throughout SE Europe. And in this case compounding the tragedy even more ITTL.

Would the same concepts of religion=ethnicity be so enforced by a victorious Greece seeking to shore up their rule in Anatolia, though? They may well try to welcome Muslim Greeks. I have a feeling the “rural, ignorant” Slavs of Macedonia and (ITTL larger) Thrace will get the oppression instead.

On the other hand an feasible Greek Ionia IS stopping at the coast and probably only part of the coast, the OTL Sevres zone is a resonable approximation of the end state in case of a Greek victory, with parts of modern Mugla province an outside possibility. We shouldn't be mistaking the Greek military strategy in late 1920-21 which was aiming to decisively defeat the nationalist army to force Kemal to terms with the end state Athens was hoping to achieve at the peace treaty.

Sèvres seems to go more inland in Ionia than where the Greeks lived, although it also doesn’t cover as much coast as could be said to have been Greek. I guess the coastal Greeks from elsewhere in Anatolia could head inland in Ionia, but that leaves less Greeks to change the demographics in Europe.
 
Top